Does anyone have a link or info from a pistol manufacturer (or other reliable irrefutable resource) that just flat out recommends dry-firing as a good practice?
Wanting this info started as an argument at a local Cabelas with one of their “experts” but I couldn’t give any real support, such as Smith & Wesson, Glock, etc. recommend dry-firing. I practice by “dry firing” to practice trigger control, sight acquisition, etc. but can’t find any legitimate support.
I know you can go to the internet to justify doing anything anyway you want and maybe my search skills prevent me from being able to find something that is more than being just a bunch of opinions.
I’m not sure if the Marine Corps still does it, but most of the first week of the two weeks I spent at Edson Range when I went through boot camp in 1972 was spent ‘snapping in’ (dry-firing) on barrels with the different targets painted on them.
I don’t know what else you could need, unfortunately, there is no mention of dry-fire in The Bible, which is apparently what is needed to convince some folks of it’s value.
It doesn’t harm most common center fire rifles, but it does harm rimfires because the firing pin hits the barrel, whereas a center fire rifle’s firing pin doesn’t hit anything. … Even if it is a rimfire, it can be dry fired without damage if you insert a snap cap or spent casing in the chamber.
The dry firing debate has been raging on since shortly after the flood waters receded in Noah’s day. If you want official rulings, in depth scientific studies, and manufacturers documented info…good luck. You will only ever get anecdotal information on both sides. Make your decision and drive on. Random guy behind the counter at Cabela’s or the LGS… your first mistake was making eye contact and engaging in verbal communication.
If I understand you correctly, you want a supporting evidence that dry fire helps to improve technical skills / shooting abilities. Gun manufacturer’s won’t be your source, people or organizations that have achieved recognizable levels of technical excellence are. Training and competition community are such people, with more or less available evidence to that. In a written form, your best reference is a self-taught and trained six-time USPSA National champion and reigning world IPSC champion Ben Stoeger, who has presented compelling arguments that dry fire in some instances is superior to live fire and has published multiple dry fire books and even videos. Having shot with multiple Super Squad level shooters, not one got there without dry fire, and it is endorsed and utilized in classes by multiple trainers and instructors. Rogers Shooting School offers evening dry fire sessions after their daily live routine is completed.
Highly encourage dry firing and manipulations. Some refer to manipulations as “gun handling” and an experienced person can usually tell who handles their weapon like they just found it on the moon. You can get innovative with dry practice, reloads, target transitions, etc.
From the FAQ on Kimber website, and prob as close as you’ll get from a manufacturer…
I know this because I’ve apparently argued with the same guy
I’m a big advocate of dry-fire because it has made me a better shooter. As mentioned above, familiarization and manipulation are skills in themselves. Not to mention trigger control.
Dry fire is training, and manufacturers are not in training business. Don’t look up to SA, look up to its shooting ambassadors like Robbie Leatham or Williams sisters.
I didn’t like that article that much due to several implications that df is most helpful for beginners. It is helpful to everyone.
Beretta manuals for the PX4 and 92A1 suggest using snap caps if one desires to train without live ammo. M9A3 doesn’t appear to mention it.
Delta’s OTC, one of the few places in the military that teach one to become proficient with a pistol, uses both dry and live fire. Dry fire is fairly common in the military in general among units/individuals that desire proficiency.
Proficient competition shooters tend to dry fire extensively.
No manufacturer is going to recommend dry-firing as a good practice because they have no control over it and it is subject to abuse. A handgun is a machine and parts will have a cycle lifetime, while dry firing is not subjecting the firearm to the same stress as live firing you are still cycling the action and causing wear. If you run 10,000 rounds through a firearm and have to replace parts that seems reasonable, dry fire 10,000 times run 1,000 rounds and have to replace parts and idiots will be all over the interwebz with “my gunz only lasted 1,000 rounds”.
